Essar Com Not Taxable in India on Vodafone Essar Sale | ITAT
- News|Blog|International Tax|
- 4 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 14 August, 2025

Case details : Essar Com Ltd. v. ACIT - [2025] 176 taxmann.com 53 (Delhi - Trib.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Satbeer Simgh Godara, Judicial Member
- S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member
- Percy Pardiwal
- Sr. Adv., Nishant Thakkar,
- Hiten Thakkar, Advs. and Anand Jain, CA for the Appellant.
- N. Venkatraman, ASG,
- Vipul Agarwal, CIT DR,
- Smt. Rini Handa, JCIT and
- Smt. Aditi Gupta, DCIT for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee was an investment holding company incorporated in Mauritius, holding a valid Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) from the Mauritius Revenue Authorities (MRA) and a Category 1 Global Business Licence. It was a tax resident of Mauritius under the Mauritius tax law, with its control and management situated wholly in Mauritius. The assessee initially invested in its wholly owned Indian subsidiary, Essar Telecom Investments Ltd. (ETIL), which held shares in Vodafone Essar Ltd. (VEL), an Indian company.
During the assessment year 2012-13, the assessee sold these VEL shares to a non-resident entity, claiming the capital gains were not taxable in India under Article 13(4) of the India-Mauritius DTAA.
The Assessing Officer denied DTAA benefits, alleging the assessee was a sham entity, a tax resident of India under section 6(3) with control and management wholly in India, and incorporated solely for tax avoidance. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order. The matter reached the Tribunal.
Tribunal Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not a tax resident of India, as its residential status must be determined annually under section 6(3)(ii), based on events in the relevant previous year. All 11 board meetings in the financial year 2011-12, including decisions on the VEL share sale, were held in Mauritius by qualified non-Indian resident directors. No evidence showed control by Indian persons or entities; decisions were taken by the board in Mauritius, with executions authorised accordingly.
The entity was not a sham or shell company, as it held proper licences, maintained records, and conducted legitimate investment activities. Liquidation of ETIL and direct holding of VEL shares were driven by commercial imperatives, such as lender requirements for direct pledges and RBI rejections, not tax avoidance. No facts indicated tax evasion or round-tripping.
The TRC issued by MRA was conclusive evidence of the assessee’s tax residency and beneficial ownership, as affirmed by CBDT Circular No. 789 dated 13-4-2000 and upheld by the Supreme Court. In the absence of a Limitation of Benefits clause in the DTAA at the relevant time, treaty benefits could not be lawfully denied. Furthermore, the DTAA amendments effective from 1-4-2017, which grandfathered pre-2017 investments, reinforced that the capital gains in question were not taxable in India.
The transactions were genuine, with funds sourced externally via banking channels, and sale proceeds used to repay loans. Allegations of colourable devices were unsubstantiated, as structures were for business efficiency, not evasion. Thus, the assessee was entitled to DTAA benefits, and capital gains were not taxable in India.
List of Cases Reviewed
-
De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd. v. Howe (1906) 5 TC 198 (HL) [Para 104] – distinguished
-
Mansarovar Commercial (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2023] 149 taxmann.com 178/453 ITR 661/293 Taxman 312 (SC) [Para 114],
-
Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 132 Taxman 373/263 ITR 706 (SC)[Para 148],
-
Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India [2012] 17 taxmann.com 202/204 Taxman 408/341 ITR 1 (SC) [Para 118] and
-
Bid Services Division (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Authority for Advance Ruling (Income-tax) [2023] 148 taxmann.com 215 (Bombay) [Para 120],
-
S anofi Pasteur Holding SA v. Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance [2013] 30 taxmann.com 222/354 ITR 316/213 Taxman 504 (Andhra Pradesh) [Para 164] and
-
Serco BPO (P.) Ltd. v. Authority for Advance Rulings [2015] 60 taxmann.com 433/234 Taxman 630/379 ITR 256 (Punjab & Haryana) [Para 164] – followed
List of Cases Referred to
- Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 132 Taxman 373/263 ITR 706 (SC) (para 13),
- Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India [2012] 17 taxmann.com 202/204 Taxman 408/341 ITR 1 (SC) (para 14),
- Blackstone Capital Partners (Singapore) VI Fdi Three Pte. Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (International Taxation) [2023] 146 taxmann.com 569/452 ITR 111 (Delhi) (para 16),
- Bid Services Division (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Authority for Advance Ruling (Income-tax) [2023] 148 taxmann.com 215 (Bombay) (para 16),
- MIH India (Mauritius) Ltd. v. ACIT [IT Appeal No. 1023 (Delhi) of 2022, dated 16-11-2022] (para 17),
- Reverse Age Health Services Pte Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2023] 147 taxmann.com 358 (Delhi – Trib.) (para 17),
- Sri Raja K.V. Narasimha Rao Bahadur v. CIT [1950] 18 ITR 181 (Madras) (para 34),
- Girdharlal Ghelabhai v. CIT [1964] 53 ITR 23 (Gujarat) (para 34),
- Wallace Brothers & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1945] 13 ITR 39 (FC) (para 34),
- Narottam and Pereira Ltd. v. CIT [1953] 23 ITR 454 (Bombay) (para 38),
- CIT v. Nandlal Gandalal [1960] 40 ITR 1 (Punjab & Haryana) (para 38),
- Radha Rani Holdings (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. DIT [2007] 16 SOT 495 (Delhi) (para 38),
- CIT v. Bank of China (In Liquidation) [1985] 23 Taxman 46/154 ITR 617 (Calcutta) (para 41),
- De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd. v. Howe (1906) 5 TC 198 (HL) (para 43),
- Sanofi Pasteur Holding SA v. Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance [2013] 30 taxmann.com 222/354 ITR 316/213 Taxman 504 (Andhra Pradesh) (para 59),
- Becton Dickinson (Mauritius) Ltd., In re [2019] 110 taxmann.com 291/434 ITR 180 (AAR – New Delhi) (para 66),
- E Trade Mauritius Ltd., In re [2010] 190 Taxman 232/324 ITR 1 (AAR – New Delhi) (para 66),
- Universal Cargo Carriers Inc. v. CIT [1993] 70 Taxman 515/205 ITR 215 (Calcutta) (para 112),
- Erin Estate, Galah, Ceylon v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 1 (Madras) (para 112),
- Mansarovar Commercial (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2023] 149 taxmann.com 178/453 ITR 661/293 Taxman 312 (SC) (para 114),
- CIT v. JSH (Mauritius) Ltd. [2017] 84 taxmann.com 37 (Bombay) (para 164),
- Serco BPO (P.) Ltd. v. Authority for Advance Rulings [2015] 60 taxmann.com 433/234 Taxman 630/379 ITR 256 (Punjab & Haryana) (para 164) and
- S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (Appeals) [2007] 158 Taxman 74/288 ITR 1 (SC) (para 190).
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.

Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied

CA | CS | CMA